Ted Newson: Starmer is a uniquely useless technocrat
Nobody voted for this.
Ted Newson is a political commentator with Young Voices UK.
Whenever faced with a difficult choice, Keir Starmer seems uniquely capable of making the worst of a good option. For example, while the prospect of Andy Burnham challenging him for the leadership was tricky, it could also have presented an opportunity to show strength.
By suggesting to the NEC that Burnham should be approved as a by-election candidate, Starmer could have sidelined him with an unpopular ministerial position if he won – keeping him on the backfoot and bound by ministerial loyalty.
But this is not what he did, leaving his credibility much less stable with the left of the party. The mere possibility of Andy Burnham returning to frontline politics has been enough to expose Starmer’s insecurity. Rather than risking a popular figure testing his support through a by-election, the leadership has opted for bureaucratic exclusion. This is not the behaviour of a leader confident in his mandate, but of one terrified of comparison.
When it comes to political decision-making, Starmer is a paper tiger. When displaying himself on the world stage, much like the over-bureaucratic EU, the Prime Minister rarely gets beyond “thinking of condemning” political events, “in the strongest possible terms”. Previous examples of our universally disliked PM being a ‘strongman’ include telling Donald Trump it was “wrong” to discuss invading Greenland, and branding Trump’s remarks on British forces in Afghanistan “appalling” – a move Chris Mason described as his “strongest rebuke yet.”
So, yes, Starmer lags behind public opinion in most cases, with his statements amounting to little more than watered-down versions of whatever his advisers tell him the public is thinking. But then again, he has never considered himself a strongman.
In British politics, there tend to be two kinds of leaders: populists who leave detail to others while excelling on the campaign trail (think Johnson or Churchill) and detail-oriented operators who track every part of government and possess the technical knowledge to justify their vision (think May or Sunak). The strongmen possess enough flair to make the electorate forget their lack of detailed policy knowledge. The technocrats, by contrast, have the in-depth know-how to justify their rigid speeches and awkward public appearances.
Keir Starmer is neither. While it is obvious that he desperately wants to be the level-headed technocrat who will get Britain back on track, he falls short on every metric. First, he does not trust his cabinet to get on with their own jobs, fearing they may become too popular and eclipse him. Additionally, despite styling himself as a champion of human rights (being a former human rights lawyer and DPP), he has clamped down on free speech, …
Nobody voted for this.
Ted Newson is a political commentator with Young Voices UK.
Whenever faced with a difficult choice, Keir Starmer seems uniquely capable of making the worst of a good option. For example, while the prospect of Andy Burnham challenging him for the leadership was tricky, it could also have presented an opportunity to show strength.
By suggesting to the NEC that Burnham should be approved as a by-election candidate, Starmer could have sidelined him with an unpopular ministerial position if he won – keeping him on the backfoot and bound by ministerial loyalty.
But this is not what he did, leaving his credibility much less stable with the left of the party. The mere possibility of Andy Burnham returning to frontline politics has been enough to expose Starmer’s insecurity. Rather than risking a popular figure testing his support through a by-election, the leadership has opted for bureaucratic exclusion. This is not the behaviour of a leader confident in his mandate, but of one terrified of comparison.
When it comes to political decision-making, Starmer is a paper tiger. When displaying himself on the world stage, much like the over-bureaucratic EU, the Prime Minister rarely gets beyond “thinking of condemning” political events, “in the strongest possible terms”. Previous examples of our universally disliked PM being a ‘strongman’ include telling Donald Trump it was “wrong” to discuss invading Greenland, and branding Trump’s remarks on British forces in Afghanistan “appalling” – a move Chris Mason described as his “strongest rebuke yet.”
So, yes, Starmer lags behind public opinion in most cases, with his statements amounting to little more than watered-down versions of whatever his advisers tell him the public is thinking. But then again, he has never considered himself a strongman.
In British politics, there tend to be two kinds of leaders: populists who leave detail to others while excelling on the campaign trail (think Johnson or Churchill) and detail-oriented operators who track every part of government and possess the technical knowledge to justify their vision (think May or Sunak). The strongmen possess enough flair to make the electorate forget their lack of detailed policy knowledge. The technocrats, by contrast, have the in-depth know-how to justify their rigid speeches and awkward public appearances.
Keir Starmer is neither. While it is obvious that he desperately wants to be the level-headed technocrat who will get Britain back on track, he falls short on every metric. First, he does not trust his cabinet to get on with their own jobs, fearing they may become too popular and eclipse him. Additionally, despite styling himself as a champion of human rights (being a former human rights lawyer and DPP), he has clamped down on free speech, …
Ted Newson: Starmer is a uniquely useless technocrat
Nobody voted for this.
Ted Newson is a political commentator with Young Voices UK.
Whenever faced with a difficult choice, Keir Starmer seems uniquely capable of making the worst of a good option. For example, while the prospect of Andy Burnham challenging him for the leadership was tricky, it could also have presented an opportunity to show strength.
By suggesting to the NEC that Burnham should be approved as a by-election candidate, Starmer could have sidelined him with an unpopular ministerial position if he won – keeping him on the backfoot and bound by ministerial loyalty.
But this is not what he did, leaving his credibility much less stable with the left of the party. The mere possibility of Andy Burnham returning to frontline politics has been enough to expose Starmer’s insecurity. Rather than risking a popular figure testing his support through a by-election, the leadership has opted for bureaucratic exclusion. This is not the behaviour of a leader confident in his mandate, but of one terrified of comparison.
When it comes to political decision-making, Starmer is a paper tiger. When displaying himself on the world stage, much like the over-bureaucratic EU, the Prime Minister rarely gets beyond “thinking of condemning” political events, “in the strongest possible terms”. Previous examples of our universally disliked PM being a ‘strongman’ include telling Donald Trump it was “wrong” to discuss invading Greenland, and branding Trump’s remarks on British forces in Afghanistan “appalling” – a move Chris Mason described as his “strongest rebuke yet.”
So, yes, Starmer lags behind public opinion in most cases, with his statements amounting to little more than watered-down versions of whatever his advisers tell him the public is thinking. But then again, he has never considered himself a strongman.
In British politics, there tend to be two kinds of leaders: populists who leave detail to others while excelling on the campaign trail (think Johnson or Churchill) and detail-oriented operators who track every part of government and possess the technical knowledge to justify their vision (think May or Sunak). The strongmen possess enough flair to make the electorate forget their lack of detailed policy knowledge. The technocrats, by contrast, have the in-depth know-how to justify their rigid speeches and awkward public appearances.
Keir Starmer is neither. While it is obvious that he desperately wants to be the level-headed technocrat who will get Britain back on track, he falls short on every metric. First, he does not trust his cabinet to get on with their own jobs, fearing they may become too popular and eclipse him. Additionally, despite styling himself as a champion of human rights (being a former human rights lawyer and DPP), he has clamped down on free speech, …
0 Comments
0 Shares
43 Views
0 Reviews
